Wrestling Forum banner

How do you judge in-ring ability?

2K views 24 replies 20 participants last post by  Simpsons Modern Life 
#1 ·
You hear it all the time on here. "This guy can work" or "This guy can't". The way most actual wrestlers see it, we're all just talking out of our asses. What does it really mean when you say someone is a good wrestler or not?

Self explanatory thread title. Do you Trust in Meltzer? Do you have a complex set of criteria that breaks down a guy by his work rate, stamina, complexity of moveset etc.? Or do you judge by overall match quality?

I for one, judge by overall match quality. No matter how proficient in chain wrestling you are or how many holds you know, if your matches don't deliver then I can't think you're a good wrestler (looking at you Wade Barrett). Based on my criteria, guys like Jeff Hardy, John Cena and Batista are more valuable in-ring talents than guys like William Regal, or Lance Storm or whichever else Man of 1,000 Rest Holds/Suplexes you have.

But that's just the way I see it. How do you decide whether or not someone can wrestle?
:talk
 
#3 ·
Chain wrestling bores me to tears unless you have two guys in the ring together that are great at it. I will use Benoit as an example. His matches bored me unless he was in the ring with someone like Angle or Bret, then I enjoyed his matches.

I greatly enjoy a complex moveset full of unique power moves like early Scott Steiner and Brock Lesnar, but you can't have a great 30 minute match with these moves alone.

In my top 50 matches Ric Flair is probably in more of them than anyone else despite his limited moveset, but he made every move matter. Great crowd involvement. A Ric Flair oversell flop had more impact than almost anything I see in today's product and his promo ability gave true meaning to a match. This is huge for me. If I am not invested in the outcome, then the greatest in ring performance ever does have the same meaning

I think Shawn is the best all around ring performer ever, yet he is not the best at any single aspect of wrestling. There are many better high flyers and technical wrestlers, but no one that has ever taken a piece of everything and combined it into one's own style as well as he did.

Selling is huge as well and doesn't get near the credit as technical wrestling. It has to at least look real to me. I would rather see slight overselling than poor selling.

Great in ring performers know how to tell a story with their in ring performance just like they do on the mic. Great heels know that they are supposed to act cowardly and cheat while not overdoing it and know how to use their surroundings to enhance the match. There was a great post in the HIAC thread that was talking about how Shawn and Taker used the cell and truly made it part of the match.
 
#7 ·
storytelling ability, effort and just being entertaining

its a lost art to be honest. kids today think its about flips, moonsaults, finishers, 'mat wrestling' and crowd reaction

i mean sure i suppose they may play a part, but unless properly incorporated within the context and flow of the match, youre just wasting everyone's time
 
#8 ·
storytelling ability, effort and just being entertaining

its a lost art to be honest. kids today think its about flips, moonsaults, finishers, 'mat wrestling' and crowd reaction

i mean sure i suppose they may play a part, but unless properly incorporated within the context and flow of the match, youre just wasting everyone's time
This is my problem with Indy wrestling especially.
 
#9 ·
Can they tell a story, do it well and do it consistently? Because fuck all else matters.

Dusty Rhodes, for example, couldn't do an ounce of flippy shit. His chain wrestling was average at best. Dusty was a straight up brawler. But he told some of the finest stories ever seen in a ring in the history of this business. That's what makes an all-time great. That's why certain net heroes, like AJ Styles or Evan Bourne, will never amount to more than a skidmark in this business.
 
#10 ·
I think it's a little too simplistic to say "he entertains me." WHY are you entertained? Do you only find WWE-style wrestling entertaining, or only technical wrestlers, or only "serious" wrestling entertaining, etc. I don't think it's a science in writing down what makes a wrestler great. There are several individual attributes that you can use to "grade" wrestlers, and any one of them - properly executed - can make a wrestler great. Placing emphasis on one attribute over another is usually a matter of personal taste.
 
#12 ·
Being able to tell a good story in the ring and keeping the crowd engaged throughout the match. Have to be at least decent at selling (especially if you're a babyface) and have an entertaining control segment. After all that, it's crispness. You don't have to perform every move picture perfect, but you can't be too sloppy, either. That's pretty much it for me.
 
#14 ·
I don't really have some kind of system of scaling it. If I enjoy most of their matches, I'll be more likely to talk strongly about their in ring work. If I'm entertained by them, then I consider them good.

Some guys obviously excel in certain aspects, but that doesn't necessarily make them better than someone with less skill that knows how to use it better.
 
#17 ·
it is

its a fight, its not fucking ballet. sometimes shit goes wrong. and sometimes sloppiness adds to the grittiness of the brawl

half the reason i detest angle vs benoit so much is because it doesnt look as much like a wrestling match as does a recital of swan lake
 
#19 · (Edited)
Everything goes into account, yeah Hogan can have a great match with his limited moves. But it's funny when people diss the "no talent Indy hacks who can only chain wrestle & have no charisma." All these dissers of the "wrestlers" need to sit back & watch any of the matches between Misawa, Kobashi & Kawada - Wow LOOK AT THAT!? Guys who have in ring skills & can have the crowd in the palm of their hands, I didn't know that was possible. Just because the retarded American audience doesn't appreciate the art of wrestling, doesn't mean your wrong if you do.

Guys like Bryan & Punk, these little "vanilla midgets" get the current WWE crowd more invested in their matches then any other wrestler on the roster does. But oh yeah their not 6'6 & ripped with muscles so they suck. I swear the guys who love size are closet ****'s, but I digress.

Nash, Warrior, Hogan - these "limited" guys were very entertaining & great to watch. Great matches, so no - it doesn't matter how you do it, as long as you do it well. But to say one is better then the other is retarded & ignorant. Shit's 2 sides to the same coin, either way it's money. People can prefer a "style", but that's all it is. Different styles is what makes it fun & interesting, it's like that with every sport. Some people play the spread, some people play the power I - it is what it is.
 
#23 ·
Whether or not they entertain me? There is no set formula. I'm entertained by everything from Zbyszko stalling to Lawler punching to Flair chopping to Taz suplexing to young Rey flying all over the place to Foley taking crazy bumps to...well, you get the point.

The one thing I hate is sitting around in (rest)holds. So long as you keep the boring ass holds to a mininum, you've got a chance with me.
 
#25 ·
What a great thread!!!!!! OK ... to judge good in ring ability, it takes a mixture of things, one of the first things that comes to mind is athleticism, how the guy moves around the ring, a combination of moves that flow from one to the other, (movesets tend to follow better if you know which moves you are doing and which works well to follow up with), in ring psychology is also another good aspect to have, endurance!!!!! ..... with endurance you can see a wrestler last a long time in an iron man match, or the Royal Rumble for example, without signs of weakness, storytelling and working a match is also another great thing, looking after your opponent, making moves look so painful but they don't feel a thing, a knowledge of movesets in the style they wrestle in, basically someone who can work a match and make it unique every time and different to each opponent they can adapt to, there are many more I could go into but this is the gist of it I feel. :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top